The Underhanded Undercount Edition
Support for this podcast and the following message. Come from Google veteran. Mitch wait founded skinny sticks maple syrup and he's showing that small businesses can do big things. Mitch started making syrup from few trees, and his Wisconsin, backyard. And now is connecting with customers worldwide with help from Google tools skinny sticks is one of millions of small businesses using Google to grow learn how Google is helping businesses in your state at Google dot com slash economic impact. Hello, and welcome to the slate political gabfest for June six twenty nineteen underhanded undercount edition. I'm David Fawcett about this obscure. I'm in Washington DC in New Haven at Yale, where she is associated with the law. School is the New York Times magazines Emily Baz Lon. Hello, emily. Hello, David, and in New York City, as new office at sixty minutes, CBS's sixty minutes is John Dickerson. How are you? Hi, David actually, I'm in the same recording booth. But, but I'm oh I've just come you have to. Do you have to walk across the street? Exactly. Yeah. If the dodge cars on fifty eight or fifty seven th street heroin, foof. Yeah. That is heroin on this week's gabfest. The supreme court get's ready to rule on the big census citizenship case, even as new evidence comes too late of these sneaky, racist, scheming behind how that citizenship question, census was born. Then we'll the president fell through and his plan to impose new tariffs on Mexico, an effort to get Mexico to change its migration policies, and then should the park land security officer, go to prison for his failure to help stop the school massacre at that school in two thousand eighteen plus, of course, we're going to have cocktail chatter and a reminder that we have to live shows coming up this Saturday. So tomorrow, if you're listening to this on Friday. Today. If you're listening to on Saturday. If you're in New York, there's going to be slate date. It's an all the extravaganza podcasting in Manhattan on the high line in all sorts of different wonderful forms. There's a mom and dad are fighting play date. There's a trivia, Nicole cliff is going to be there. My my, my Nicole cliff is going to be there doing some stuff, there's gonna be a wave show and there's a culture fest. It's I think there's a Trump cast, and we, of course, have a show from two to three thirty on Saturday at the SPA theater in Chelsea. I think we are sold out, but they're, they're all day passes. You can still get which would allow you access to our show. So if you can't haven't gotten a ticket to our show, but you want an all day pass that will get you into our show. They're still plenty available. So go to slate dot com slash live for tickets to that. And also reminder that we are doing our first show internationally. We're going to Canada Toronto on Wednesday, July tenth at Kerner hall, and the Tele center for performance and. Learning. Go to sleep dot com slash lied. To get tickets to that show that is going to be very exciting. We're working on getting a great guest for that show as well. So we'll see you on July tenth in Toronto. This census case is crazy secret evidence in a strange daughter, a shadowy figure who is the Michelangelo of gerrymandering. And meanwhile, the supreme court in their back rooms, and they're in their cloistered in their cloistered, curtained chambers. Contemplate a decision, which could radically shift, not just how we count the census. But how we apportion apportion votes, how we apportion I we, we before some political power in the country, Emily, what the heck is going on? Who is this fellow hoffler, ho feller? Oh my God. This like this is like a like a John Grisham novel had an accident with a Stephen King novel and, and, and Tom Clancy was like at the wheel. I thought you were going to very well that Scopus blog. For one key co author this. Thriller of strange dimension. So let's just back up for a second. We're talking about the Trump administration's decision to add a question about citizenship to the twenty twenty census in the face of evidence, very stark conclusions from the census bureau itself that adding this question is likely to reduce the accuracy of the census by discouraging and kind of spooking people who are immigrants, and people who are networked with immigrants from responding to the sense. So the idea is you asked me about their citizenship, if they're not citizens, or they live with people aren't citizens. They're not going to be super excited to tell you all about themselves and give you their home address, though. I should note that it is a violation of federal law to take census data and use it for anything other than its declared purpose. Anyway. Lots of roiling around the census which we've talked about before. Now we have this sort of sixth act in which the daughter of the Michelangelo of gerrymandering is the New York Times calls him a man named Thomas. Ho feller, her dad died, and then she found on his hard drives a very telling memo he wrote in two thousand fifteen in which he said that, if you added a citizenship question to the census Republicans could change the way that states do redistricting. They could base it on this new data about the citizenship population, and now it allow them to redraw districts in a way that help white, rural Republican voters. So this citizenship question edition looks like a big power grab. We had some inkling of this before because. Chris co BAC, who is the architect of a lot of voter suppression tactics in Kansas. He we knew had met with the commerce secretary Wilbur Ross before Ross asked to add this question, and co back had already written for Breitbart, about this very same idea of expanding Republican political power based on getting this new data from the census. But now we have this apparent smoking gun because it turns out that whole feller also helped draft the letter that the Justice department row to secretary of commerce Wilbur Ross in which it provided this what looks like false justification. Oh, we need the status so we can enforce the Voting Rights Act. There's actually like a word for word paragraph in this letter that is based on a file on ho fellers, hard drive. And so it just and he was also meeting with the sky. Mark Newman who is a vise ING commerce secretary Ross there, a lot of dots to connect here, and the kind of underlying. Question is okay. It was very hard to believe on its face. The Trump administration's professed reason for adding this question in order to better enforce the Voting Rights Act, because the Trump administration does not has not shown any interest in really helping black and Hispanic voters through the Voting Rights Act and the government never asked for this data before to enforce the Voting Rights Act. So it never looked like the real reason. And now we have looks like real smoking gun evidence that in fact, it was not. And the big question is, whether the supreme court is going to care and even pay attention to this at all. And then what does that mean if they're not willing to look behind the curtain also not just not just to enhance white power, didn't he explicitly say, isn't there, explicit language to reduce Hispanic nine power, non? I mean it's so that's like how much more kind of well, targeted racist. Can you be sending Republicans? And non-hispanic whites. In his study, the just add a couple of things to what said. So this fellow Newman was one working with hoffler and basically, they said we don't know where this information came from. We don't know the author, like they re that, what's at stake here is lying. Also to congressional investigators and also lying to the court. So the question the first question is, whether the supreme court based on this new evidence that the Justice department and Commerce Department may have lied. There's also a New York case or is it New York, Maryland? I can't remember but there were three judges that have not bought the administration's argument, I think, either in New York or Maryland. They're trying to get the case reopened, which would then complicate the supreme court case. Right. Basic case opened on the idea basically that the administration has been lying about the real reason. They're asking the citizenship question, which is what this is now about which is the administration said as you said. About voting rights this suggests that. No. It's about this other thing. Yeah. In maryland. I think or possibly the California case they're trying to get the case reopened introduce this evidence in New York this week. There was a hearing before judge Jesse Furman, who had presided over trial on the question of adding the citizenship question. And the hearing was about whether to sanction the lawyers, who had let in this false evidence and deal with this possible false. Testimony and judge Furman said he needed more time in briefing, and like processed figure that out and that he wasn't going to make a decision before the supreme court is due to rule at the end of June. And so if there had been his hope of, like, quick movement at the district court level, at least in New York that could put pressure on the supreme court to address this whole question about where this evidence came from in the role it played that is not going to happen. The supreme court is going to have to reach out and find it in another way, which could completely do if it wants to do that. So that was the question. I wanted to go to as a matter of supreme court practice is it likely is it is it normal for the court to reach out an ad evidence, which was not introduced trial, even though the reason it wasn't interested trial was perhaps, because it was withheld artificially, and do they have any allegation to do that. And knowing what we know of this court. I mean, I'm going to answer this question myself, we're all entering our head. Is there any chance they're going to take the hoffler evidence into account? The answer is in my head is no. So just telling they'll do it on some procedural ground, right? They'll tell say like, well the bus the trains, left the station, right? They won't so that they don't have to wrestle with on Clancy. Drove the car away in the car Clancy is already out of North Carolina case closed, like I wrote the book, I can't add anything to it. But of course like that is ridiculous. I mean, no, it's not normal for the supreme court to go back and reopen its proceedings. But there's nothing normal about this whole scenario. And when the governor. Presents evidence. And then there is new evidence emerging that suggests that the government's presentation was false, then absolutely courts can go back and order a new hearing. They can postpone their own ruling the supreme court. Could enter like a two sentence. Order that just says, like okay, we're staying our own opinion writing in this case. And we send this back to the district courts, to build up the record and get to the bottom of what happened and we'll see you next term. There's also a time element here, which is that the census has to go out the door relatively soon to get going. Right. So doesn't that add a little bit of drama here in and just to remind me said this, but for people the reason is so important is if the sentences and right? And you just do the citizen population. You're not counting a lot of people of color, who tend to live in democratic places. Right. Right. I mean, yes. Absolutely. You're right. I guess I shouldn't have said. We'll see you next term. They could just make. Everyone speed up and deal with this quickly like it is entirely possible for them to take this new evidence into account if they choose to do so. But I think David's right. Like we all think the ideological makeup of the court makes that extremely unlikely. And then like where are we? I mean, there's a way in which this is cases like the travel ban case, but it's also worse because the travel ban by the time the supreme court approved it had at least the fig leaf that the Trump administration had had to go back twice, and then three times and revise its travel ban, and make it look like a proper government rulemaking process. This time we've had zero of that. And so, you know, it's the Trump administration is forcing the supreme court to basically like, paper over these really glaring procedural problems with the kind of fig-leaf of, like case closed. We're not gonna look at this anymore. Like we just. Except on its face the government's rationale for adding the citizenship question. No matter how implausible, not to sort of strains, people's faith in courts, and in law Roberts, and Gorsuch, and Cavanaugh, ultimately seemed to be people who it's very, they are less outcome oriented, perhaps than than Alito. And, and Thomas, are they do seem to care about process, and that the people don't lie to courts and the courts are trusted authorities and the rules are followed. And it's surprising to me that they would be willing to tolerate so much dishonesty so much deception, like a complete an obviously obvious utter law that the government has told about why they're doing this particular thing. And then the government not abiding by procedures that. It says it has to abide by an order to put a question like this down on the census. And, and so I would have thought there'd be some way in which at least Roberts, and maybe as I said, Kevin on Gorsuch. Would be quite bothered by that. And might and might stand up against something like that. But yet they I don't think they will. A lot of evidence that when there's real political power at stake that those three justices put procedural. Principals. The ones you were just talking about ahead of that chance to increase Republican political power, and I guess I'm thinking, particularly of Justice chief Justice Roberts opinion in the Shelby county Voting Rights Act case where, you know, if you read his opinion for the majority in this is like a big five to four conservatives versus liberals split. He says things have changed dramatically in the south like we don't need this prophylactic part of the Voting Rights Act anymore that prevented states from changing their voting rules and doing things like closing pulling places, unless they had the approval of the Justice department, and it just isn't an opinion that stacks up against reality, like the states, then went and made a couple of thousand different pages to their rules. And so I just. But, but, but that was he. I thought, look he obviously wrong, the obviously what has happened is exactly the opposite of what they said was going to happen. That's I think that's I don't think that's post hoc reasoning. I mean to happen evidence he didn't wear hand. He didn't definitively know those things would happen. But there was evidence beforehand that the states were trying to do things that, like, absolutely we're going to have that effect. And the Justice department was repeatedly blocking them from doing that. So the notion that like they would stop. I mean right. This is the case in which Ruth Bader Ginsburg descent, says, like, when it's raining outside and your umbrella is keeping you dry. You don't close it and expect not to get wet. Right. Like he did have warning. But, but David, I mean, this is a bit of a tangent. But, but David's point is that in this case, there's an interest being trampled that Roberts would seem to care about. Whereas is that was that really the case in Shelby? In other words, what your you seem to be arguing, Emily, as he just made the wrong call? There. And there was plenty of evidence for why should it made the right? Call. In this case, it seems that what because I sort of agree with what David saying is that in this case, not only did they not follow the proper procedure. The first go round here, we now have pretty strong evidence that they also allied in a court of law. They being the administration and that Roberts would seem to, and I don't know about the other two would seem to have some interest in people kind of playing by the rules as one of his core principles. And that's why doing the thing that would increase conservative power would run up against a more core principle than with Shelby. But maybe, maybe I don't remember. Shelby, right. Well, I mean, the reason another reason I think that Shelby also in. It's different own way, was about playing by the rules is that congress had just reauthorized the Voting Rights Act and the supreme court normally defers to legislation like that until legislative findings about the need for a law of, of that, sort. And yet, like the conservatives, you know, didn't uphold that principle. In that particular case, I think the analogy with the travel ban, and the census case is closer because we're talking about the power of the executive branch through federal agency. And so you're right like we have our, we wanna have hold out this notion that there are these principles about how agencies make rules and they're politically neutral and judges of all ideological stripes should care about them. But I don't think the travel ban decision really bears out that notion since it had its own five to four conservative versus liberal split. And, you know, we'll see with this one, I want to move on to the sort of why the citizenship question came to be one purpose of it is, is just seems to be maybe a pure undercount, and there's estimates that this would reduce the black and Hispanic census count by four million people in the twenty twenty cents. That's a pretty conservative estimate. But that's a huge number of people, and that would have ripple effects, but the other reason is that it would allow the government to now know how many citizens. Nhs are in each state each congressional district each county, and therefore, if you wanted to have a law that allowed only that a lot of portion meant to be based on the number of citizens. You could do it because you would now have good data. So my question to want to be probably to you, Emily, since you are the legal eagle on this. What does it take to move from gathering the date on citizenship to states, actually being able to use that to only count citizens for the purposes of apportionment for either federal or state elections? Can they just go ahead and do this, or do they need to take other steps before they can go ahead and just say, we're only gonna count citizens there is nothing to stop states from changing the way they apportion to the citizen based population for state elections. The supreme court ruled in this twenty fifteen case called Evan wells versus Abbott that the states didn't have to do that. They could keep doing it the way they've always done, which is just like people not. Citizens, but they didn't shut the door to a state trying to change this practice. And so, I think that if once this data is collected you can expect some Republican leading states to, to try this out. It's hard to imagine again that the supreme court would stop them. That is not for federal elections. Eight federal elections have different rule because one person one vote really means one person one vote in the constitution states have to use the total population count, not the citizenship, count, that comes from the words in the fourteenth amendment couldn't somebody who feels that they have not gotten a benefit, because of the because distribution of benefits is tied to a bad count, sue and use this material, the hoffler material in, in their lawsuit for arguing why. Or you could just argue. Let's say we change the makeup of congressional districts in a state loses. Particularly a blue state loses a member. Could they use this, then as grounds and this new evidence as grounds to launch legal proceedings? And you wouldn't have the problem that the supreme court is likely to grab here, which is, you know, the trains already left the station. We wrote our opinion, you know, we, we had our debate, hat art opinion, we've written are. Unions. Yeah. What the census data will have been. I mean, I think once you've gathered the census data the data exists you can't sort of pretend. It doesn't exist. Right. But, but couldn't you as a state, say the data exists, but the date is faulty and based on this faulty data? You're taking away a member of congress and that shouldn't be, yeah. That's gonna we'll had, we'll have those challenges states have definitely mounted those challenges before they generally lose though. Yeah. So it sounds to me, I'm that you think that we're likely to see this done for state elections. So a state like Mississippi or Louisiana or Texas is going to say, we're only for the purposes of apportioning, our state, legislature were only going to count how many citizens live in a district. I mean this goes back to ha- fellers study in two thousand fifteen like this was legal after the supreme court's decision in Evan. Well, and the thing that was standing between states, trying this and actually doing. It was a lack of complete census data. So now you've checked that box. Why wouldn't the states try to do that? What do you guys think? I actually find myself oddly ambivalent about this, and I know I'm wrong. And constitutionally course it's one person one vote. But what is the argument against just counting citizens for the purpose of apportionment? I don't understand. I don't think that there's necessarily like an incredibly great argument against. Okay. So first of all, its citizens of voting age, so a Matt, I mean you go back to this principle of law should be citizens of voting. What everybody talks about. It's called the citizen voting age population is what they would use which leaves out children, right? I suppose you could include. Well, I, I don't approve that I would say you. So imagine like your state legislator. Do you represent the immigrants and foreign born people who are not citizens who are in your district like they're they are, they're human beings? They also have needs and wants and rights, and so the ideas like view don't care about them, because like they're not counted in the in the sense of representation, right? Like that's that's has to be the principal if you're going to change this, but they still live in your district, but they still live in your district, and they don't have the they don't have the capacity to vote for you, anyway. So used your your ability to represent them is no different than it was before. It's simply matter county, disenfranchising them means that you basically, the government is saying, like these people in franchising them. They're not enfranchised because they are not citizens. They haven't been there. They're just not franchised, you're paying you're right. They didn't have the vote before, but you're taking away any notion that they count, right? In the course of representation, and so I think that idea to me, there's something noxious about it. Well, wha- magin. I don't think you have a scenario like this. But imagine, you, you had a district a place where there was literally every single person that lived there was an immigrant, a non non citizen immigrant, nobody can vote. And then you don't of district like that. What, you know, the district would exist. Nobody would vote like nobody could get elected, there would be no votes. But, but why should that just that's, that's an absurd situation to imagine? Right. It's ludicrous that shouldn't happen. Yeah. But it also doesn't happen. Like, isn't that one of those like you can create a hypothetical in which, like, yes, if we ever reached that place, it would be crazy. But that's not the world we live in. So who cares? Can I just way in? I think it's true that we have about somewhere between thirteen and fourteen million lawful, permanent residents, which is the class. We're talking, I mean, one portion of the class, we're talking about here, people who are in the country legally, but not citizens, which is distinct from people who are in the country, not legally. So that's another group. But hey can I just ask one more legal question of you, Emily, which is, what is the grounds on which the supreme court conservatives would judge in favor of the administration. What would they hang their argument on since three lower courts have said that the administration can't do this. Yeah. So the legal claim here, the main one is under the administrative procedures act and the argument is that the Trump administration screwed this up so badly that it's rulemaking and adding the citizen ship question, it was arbitrary and capricious. That's the legal standard. So the court says, like, no, it wasn't. We believe them. I'm sure this could be to enforce the Voting Rights Act better like they say that's what they're doing. That's must be what they're doing, like case closed. You know normally the government wins cases where they're changing the rules under the administrative procedure act because you just like follow a set of procedures, and it's not that hard to do. Sleepless members get segments on the gap best other slate podcasts. So today's sleek, plus segment. We're going to discuss the protests against President Trump on his during his visit to Great Britain, and is it good or bad. When foreigners deride and mock and protest in American president visiting their country. Go to sleep dot com slash gaffe s plus to become a member today and here that discussion and other flight, plus bonus discussions support for the best comes from WalMart. When Amanda Whitehurst took a job as a WalMart cashier ten years ago, she thought it was only temporary within months, the people she met in the support. She received set her on a path to become store manager. Amanda is one of more than one million. Walmart associates who have access to new ways of working as they prepare for the jobs of tomorrow. The company offers programs like WalMart academies for their training advancement and experiential learning through virtual reality and. Live better. You were associates can access courses and earn a college degree for just one dollar a day. These are just some of the ways that associates, Amanda are propelling their careers forward. Visit WalMart dot com slash future of work to learn more. This week Mexican American negotiators have been trying to resolve the latest Trump trade crisis trade slush immigration crisis. The president has declared he's going to impose a five percent tariff on all Mexican trade. If Mexico doesn't tighten up its own migration policies, if it doesn't keep asylum seekers in Mexico, if it doesn't control Mexico, southern border to prevent the flow of Central American migrants, if it doesn't stop the migrant caravans for making their way across Mexico. The president also says the tariffs will increase every month up to twenty five percent. If Mexico doesn't meet these demands, there's been a lot of pushback from the Republican party. John Mexico, Mexico has sent its negotiators very quickly and. You know, clearly I don't think any anyone in who has a MAC economic interest in Mexico. Particularly wants these tariffs to happen. But so far at the time of our taping on Thursday morning, they don't seem to have the breakthrough that a satisfied, President Trump or, or vice president Pence. So is it the madman approach by Trump, that, that could work that could compel Mexico to make some serious changes in the migration policies that, that they wouldn't otherwise make in order to forestall these tariffs? I, I, I don't know. But I, I think there's evidence and I think there's I think you could make that case I mean, I guess the first thing is one of the articles that I read talked about, you know, the purported crisis of on lump on lawful immigration across the border last month was the largest month in seven years of my. Grants being arrested at the border, which was up thirty two percent from April, so like this isn't a non problem. That's diff- distinct from the question of whether you need to send the military need to do these tariffs, but it's not it's not a non it's not a non-problem now and it's also distinct from whether the remedies being put in place, tariffs, and others wall and so forth, actually, do anything to meet the problem in terms of whether this is the madman theory. I mean, I think we I've tried this theory out before, but is essentially that the that on some things I wonder whether the president doesn't have a kind of moon chosen by proxy approach to governing which is creates a crisis creates a of a desktop, and then a bunch of people scramble around and, and do things to fix the crisis that he's created in this case, the crisis is increased cost of consumer goods for US consumers, which based on some studies Mexico, plus. What's happening to China? Pl- is already eating away at and we'll have eaten away at the benefit, lower and middle income people. Got from the tax cut hurting people at the lowest income, a portion of Lois portion of the income scale, more than anybody else. So the creates all this crisis, some kind of solution is found. The president says see what I did solved. It even though the progress in some cases is merely reasserting the status quo. That was there before the crisis happened. I also think that the president will going back to my elevator analogy. I think he wants to push the buttons that he can push. And in this case, this is something he can do to issue the open question, I would say, one other thing if the fed is really thinking about cutting rates. That's another thing, the president wanted them to do. He was said they were crazy to raise rates. Now they're talking about lowering rates in order to deal with this tariff madness. So you could imagine him saying, see, I got the agreement with Mexico, and I got the fed to lower rates, which I've been trying to do because it was killing our economic. Growth. So those are some thoughts in response to your madman theory. This is a one should obviously say no way to run a railroad and during the Obama administration, so often he was attacked for the lack of certainty that he that his policies were creating in the business world. And in the in the in the markets. And I mean obviously, this is a huge dose and constant dose of uncertainty from the president, Emily. There's been actual. There's been actual pushback from Republican senators or irate about the prospect of tariffs they think it's the wrong mechanism that it's effectively attack on American consumers, and American firms, and theoretically, if, if Republican senators oppose these tariffs, they have there's, it's a veto proof that can also round up. Some House Republicans, you can have a veto proof group and both houses of congress that could stop the president from doing this and yet. Ju and yet, we also know that will never happen. They will not fall into line or they will fall into line when the time comes right? Yeah. I guess so. I mean there is a spectacle aspect of this, which is to watch the Republican party, which I thought was a party of free trade become so willing to totally throw a monkey, wrench into free trade. And I think one thing about tariffs is the longer term implications of them because they disrupt all these cross border markets that we've the companies have put enormous work into building. Right. So like these supply chains where you make part of something, and then you send it to Mexico and they make part of something and you send it back to America. And like that's how we make cars, and that's how we make a million different things if we're really going to put a big cost on doing business that way, that is going to just have all kinds of ripple effects. I mean obviously. We could have this conversation about China, too, but Mexico, like our closest neighbor and like seamless trading partner in the wake of NAFTA, like this is a big deal. And I don't really feel like there's we know how that all plays out. I, I mean, I'm I'm generally an avid free-trader and so it's easier for me to make the argument you just made. Then I think it is for you to make it Emily. Why is it so wrong to throw a wrench in global trade to get policy gains on something? That is a different matter. If, if you believe that migration that the migration crisis is a real crisis. And if you want to put pressure on the Mexican government, you don't wanna go to war with Mexico. You don't wanna send troops to Mexico. You don't wanna like bomb Mexico. You don't wanna murder migrants. I mean, maybe this administration does, but why is it? So why is it? So why put free trade on this, pedestal where we can't we can't possibly disrupt these supply chains these supply chains. Much more important than anything care about, why is this not a legitimate use? I mean, there's a question whether the president actually has the authority to it. But why is it not legitimate to say? Okay. Free trade is one of the mechanisms that we have to put pressure on other countries for policy matters that we really care about. So let's use it, and I think we generally don't because we like the idea of America becoming wealthier and more important in the global economy, rather than walled off from it, and those have been pretty sacrosanct political principles. But I also think your argument made more much more sense in the context of China, where you're using trade policy to address problems of trade policy. Right. Like the Chinese are stealing all this intellectual property, and so, and they really are doing things to prop up their own industries. So at least tariffs, feel like their apples responding to Apple's, even if it's still a misguided idea whereas like the Mexicans aren't to blame for the instability in countries like Guatemala that are send it in from, which people are fl. Fleeing because of violence there and the notion that Mexico a much poorer country in the United States, as opposed to just like stop all these people or hold onto all these people like it just seems so at so a problem where the problem and this tariff solution do not align. I mean, I'm just I'm susceptible to your, your argument David, because we use embargoes and economic threats to calm countries. All the time to get them to do other things that we want. So this seems in keeping with that, but the president's not being straight with what's going on here? I mean he's claiming that these tariffs are going to bring money into the US at the same way he's claiming the same thing with China n he's being contradicted in public by his economic officials let alone every other breathing economist on the planet, and nevertheless, he continues to say things in support of this policy that are not true. So that's not good. You should be able to argue for this policy on its own terms, not have to lie and spin to, to do it. And the second reason you don't you may be don't wanna do it is that you're bunking on the head the very I mean, at least based on the analysis of the tax foundation and the university of Pennsylvania, the tariffs that the president has an acted so far. Are, are hurting the people that he devoted his inaugural address to the forgotten man. So the people at the lower in and middle fifth of the income scale now you can make the case. Hey, a little shared sacrifice so that we can straighten these things out problem is on the case of, in the case of China, straightening out means fixing the intellectual property rights arrangements, and that helps. Glenn industries and right. The farm end the pharmaceutical corporation. So the question is, whether even in the corrected balance of trade, the president would like whether the, the rewards would flow to the voters that he says he's in there swinging for Emily do, do you think there's a way in which the strong economy has just protected Trump from the consequences of all of these? Various wild swings investigations on trade. I do think that's true. I also think the parts of the country that are hardest hit Pino some of the farmers who've been hit there in, like deep Trump country in which it's hard to get people to shift their allegiances when they were based on so many sort of, like, cultural, or deep feelings of nation from Democrats as well as entity for Trump than the other thing is like if the fed is going to shield Trump and the country from the consequences than that is also gonna put off implications of all of this, and I just feel like there is a way in which Trump makes a lot of moves that if you cared about the medium or the long term, you would not make, but he's in care about the medium or the long-term at all, like, he won't be an office when we pay the price support for the Gulf Coast comes from luminary, if you're big Trevor Noah and daily show fan than you should check out his new podcast. It's called on second. Thought. Trevor Noah podcast. And it's only available on luminary whether Noah's discussing race culture, sports, or capitalism. Each week. He and his guests turned catchphrases and sound bites into real conversation. Along with his new podcast. Luminary also gives you access to a bunch of other original shows the won't find anywhere else like Leon facs fiasco, which is off to an amazing start with its tail of the two thousand election and the Michigan surrounding it. Luminary app is free to download and you can listen to thousands of podcasts, including the ones you already love like the gabfest, and it's all enhanced by an easy to use interface with personalized content recommendations. And luminary has a special offer for you your listeners. If you sign up by going to luminary dot link slash gabfest. He'll get your first two months of luminaries premium content free. That's luminary dot link slash gap vest for two months of free access luminary dot link slash gabfest. Cancel anytime terms apply. Support for the vest comes from Omaha Steaks. Are you looking for easy affordable way to stuck up for your summer grilling? Or maybe you're hunting for a great Father's Day gift. Think Omaha Steaks Omaha Steaks is America's orig-. Title butcher, making special occasions easier since nineteen seventeen. Right now, Omaha Steaks is offering a limited time Father's Day gift offer to get fest listeners order now and you'll get to filet mignons to top sirloin to pork chops for Omaha steak burgers for gourmet jumbo Franks four chicken fried, steaks, all beef meatballs for chicken breasts for caramel tartlets, a packet of Omaha Steaks signature seasonings, and you'll get an extra four Omaha steak burgers, free. Give this amazing package as a gift for the dad, and your life or stuck up for your own incredible summer grilling. It's all seventy four percent off, again order now you can get this exclusive Omaha Steaks. Father's Day steak, fixed package valued at two hundred and thirty five dollars for just fifty nine ninety nine just go to Omaha Steaks dot com and type gab into the search bar. Don't wait, this offer ends soon. Go to Omaha Steaks dot com. Type gab in the search bar to get this Father's Day, steak, Vicks package today, Scott Peterson the re. Resource officer, the, the, the cop the security guard at parkland at Madras Doman Douglas school in Florida was charged. With ten eleven counts, eleven felony counts this week, ten of them related to sort of neglect. His failure to provide care to the children under his care and the way in which he failed to do that. As when there was this terrible attack by school shooter in two thousand eighteen Peterson stood outside the school never entered never attempted to stop the shooter never moved to save. Any of the children or put his his own life at risk? And he is now facing I think life in prison, actually, if, if one hundred. Yeah. If, if convicted, so it's a really complicated case and a really complicated issue because obviously the villain there's one villain. In this case, it is the, the murderer who came in slaughtered, his his classmates and Peterson is not that person Peterson. You know was apparently a coward or, or confused in the moment, and the question is, whether it is useful, whether it is valuable, whether it is right to hold him criminally accountable for a terrible mistake that he's made and this sin, perhaps that he's committed. So emily. I'm gonna start with you. Does it make sense to you that there been criminal charges filed against Peterson? Not really. I mean for one thing I just I mean I understand the impulse to blame him. And I do think he behaved in a pretty indefensible manner. But I just feel like. This is what we do. Right. Like we pick one person and we scapegoat them instead of coming up with some solution that is more likely to prevent future terrible shootings like having more restrictions on gun ownership. And so it just upsets me that like this is the this is the consequence in the kind of like thing, we can hold up like oh, we did this. We put this one cowardly police officer in prison for a long time, instead of like really changing the underlying conditions that informed, what happened here I guess you can argue that this is a wakeup call for other cops in this position. It will be easier for police officers in the moment to remember that. They Adere election of duty can have serious consequences. I really think though this prosecution is not gonna work like the statutes that he's being charged under they're not meant for cops. They're like about neglecting, kids, like usually duties that we. Associated put onto parents, not the police. But Emily, it's also the case. You know you see you can't have a arena. I think it would be very bad devastation where police officers or the military where if you don't do your job, or if your job is to protect people, and you, you just like, hey, I'm not going to do it that there's no responsibility. There's no in the military in the military. There's there's, I hate this idea that the only consequences putting someone in prison and criminally prosecuting that, like there are other consequences. But in the military though, that this ends you, you know, this is put you in the Brig you can get, you can get desertion you get hanged for desertion, you know, history. Do we want to treat people who are in law enforcement inside the country and are not in the military as if they're in the military. I don't know. John did this does this solution feel or this, this remedy feel like a useful piece of remedy? No. Well, no. I mean for the for version of the reasons that Emily sites, which is at the complexity here, goes beyond whatever you may feel about guns and gun rights. I mean, there were eighteen calls warning about the, the shooter the FBI admitted that they ignored real tips about the shooter. And then there were there was maybe it's just a fog of the moment. But the initial response from the other responding officers was not seamlessly perfect in all ways in community. Nation and so forth. So, and I also I don't know enough about the training to 'cause I know and I, so I don't know enough about training to make a claim here period. However, I do know. And again, I don't know if that's the case in here. But that the that the training has changed in terms of how you respond to these. I mean that I think that the, the view now is that you rush in and you go in, and you don't wait and you but that there was a period in which the response to school shooters, was to wait again, I have no idea if that's the case here, but it does. But, but I say all of that, to how Peterson was was trained matters to what we would all want is some kind of sanction, for somebody who doesn't just do their job poorly, but who does the opposite of their job? And as a result, you know, more people are killed in this case, we're really talking about the students and teachers who were killed on the third floor because the ones on. The first floor. I think it was eleven of the seventeen it was over almost instantaneously, nobody could have done. There was no resource officer who could have done anything. But the claims here are about, you know, what could have happened on the on the third floor after which, which, you know, might have been possible. I also there's also the question of whether he lied about his response, and what it was, and that, obviously, we don't want in any in any in any situation, separate and apart from the bravery question it is. I think Emily your point that this is the classic example of the scapegoat is really useful. The idea of escape goat in the bible. This is a creature on, which you put all of everyone's sins. And then send the off the goat off into the wilderness to die. Peterson is not exactly this because Peterson clearly bears some sort of culpability there's some way in which he failed in his duty. But the notion that, that prosecuting him solve these. Deeper structural problems. The one John just identified around the warnings about the shooter. The fact that guns are so readily available to people, the fact that we have a culture where we're school shootings are familiar in this viral they're contagious. And until it's makes it much easier for people to do school shootings mentally easier to do it. I mean, all of those things allow us to avoid our own culpability, our own responsibility for the shootings, which is that we have failed to create an environment where children can be safe because we are unwilling to attack these other these other issues, and I'm willing to do harder. Things politically harder things in order to make ourselves. And our children's safer, the one, the one argument against that in this case is that Florida did pass some new gun safety laws. It did pass laws around arming teachers did pass laws changed how police supposed to respond to it. So it's not this, this is not the only thing that Florida's doing in response to the. Parkland shooting. You could say that this is they are they actually are pursuing this kind of mosaic approach in that. Yes. Peterson is a scapegoat. But he's an it's not the only act of reflection and action that Florida's tastes. I think all of that context is really important. And then there's just this question about weather this single prosecution will have the kind of effect on other police officers that would make you see that, like, oh, some good can come of it. And then there's just this sort of pure question of retribution. Right. I mean, there are parents of the kids who died who are saying, like may this person, rotten hell, and you can understand if you felt like someone had the duty to protect your child and could have saved John's life and just like stood their quaking that would feel like something you wanted revenge for I wonder though, about taking the energy, there's been such amazing energy from the park land students in particular, and some of these families. And then channel Ian. To like revenge filled trial in criminal proceeding. I just wonder about the, the good that that's going to do just to make one small point. And then John, you can have left word on this. But I don't think there's an epidemic of cowardly, police officers, cowardly security officers. This is not a problem that we have that were that were not going to solve by prosecuting Peterson, like what's remarkable is how brave people have been EV people have all kinds are teachers have been children have been police officers have been astonishing, how brave people are. And so, so this is not this is not an epidemic. Right. And then the last few months, we've had a couple of students who have rushed shooters and died in the course of trying to protect their classmates. The hero movement is really interesting because you see it in the way the media and the police are dealing with these shootings as well. Which is that the police in Virginia Beach. After the recent shooting. There said they were only going to mention the shooter's name once and never more. And the media that covers an over covers the shootings has it feels like over the last couple of years. Maybe last year turned from obsessing about the shooter to spending more time talking about the, the heroes and the victims. And I'm fascinated what, what that will do to, to change the appetite? And the obvious search I kind of a weird kind of fame from the people who who engage in the shootings and on your point. David. That that's, that's why police and first responders or so amazing. Is that this is what they sign up for they, and we all use to think about it in terms of nine eleven but they sign up for when everything awful in the world is happening. And everybody's running out of a building, they run in feels like that's that's still happens all the time. And that this is an actual like a major aberration that, that doesn't need a punitive remedy for the purposes of educating others. Support for the gabfest comes from Verizon doctors are doing the best they can to fight cancer, the most challenging disease humankind ever faced, but they're often limited by two d images to understand a patient's three D anatomy. What if this could be different? Dr Christopher Morley. Dr Osama Chowdhury created meta viz technology that can take two dimensional patient imaging with an MRI our cat scan and converted into three dimensional holographic renderings, this will fundamentally change, how doctors visualized cancer doctors Morley. And Chowdhry thought this technology might just not be possible because the computing power just wasn't there. But Verizon five G ultra wideband will give them the ability to do this for is in five G ultra wideband will help give doctors the ability to fight cancer like never before. All right. Let's go to cocktail chatter when you are having a summer drink. Some are cocktail. The beginning of summer summer, solstice cocktail and we Baz lawn. What are you going to be chatting about, so, some gabfest listeners know the being character in my podcast, that was based on my book charged is a young man in Brooklyn named Rory and I got an amazing text from him this morning. Amazing for him amazing amazing in the world that he just signed up for classes at Saint Francis college in Brooklyn for the fall and got what looks like a nice healthy financial aid award to go to school. So I'm just feeling really excited and thrilled for Chari that he's taking that next step, and I can't wait to support encourage him in pursuing his education. That's wonderful. Zone. What is your chatter? Mine is a about a new pew poll about which I'm not sure what I think. But anyway, it's about the idea of what they call made up news. So. Fifty percent of the country or sorry. Fifty percent of those surveyed said made up news is very big problem in the country today. That's ahead of violent crime racism, illegal, immigration, terrorism and climate change. So my reaction to this is what are your terms and what are we? And one of the things that I think, has been a problem with the term fake news. Is that the president has been able to successfully he's able to use the idea that some news is wrong and incorrect and make basically fake news? Apply to anything. He just doesn't like so it can be at one hundred percent verifiable, but he'll call it fake news. And that we in the culture have kind of lapsed into that people use the term fake news now all the time, which means they're doing his work for him. And by his work in this specific instance, I mean, changing the definition of what news is, and basically, making news, equal anything that Donald Trump doesn't like. And so, I feel like this is also being picked up in the survey, which found that those people who think that made up news is a problem, the who they blame fifty seven percent. Blamed political leaders. So that seems like a category mistake because. Political leaders, don't aren't involved in news. They're not. So to say that they are muddies, the water and therefore allows anybody who wants to make journalism where people care about facts and get in trouble if they don't have their facts. Right. It kind of lumps that in with anybody who's just riffing about information. And so I think this is a, a huge problem that even though people and that people should hold politicians to account for spreading information. That's untrue. But what does this poll show, the percentage of adults who say what group has the most responsibility in reducing the amount of made up news? Not the politicians who were saying stuff that ain't true, but they respondents said fifty three percent. So the largest by a huge margin is that the news media is responsible for making this up. So that also seems to me to be a problem you should hold people to count, who say the stuff that ain't true, and that's the end of that, right? My chatter is about two stories related stories dismal. Little fucking stories, so there's so many problems with what the Trump administration is doing with migrants, who are period at our borders, and, and they're so many like legitimate discussions about with the right the proper kind of policy response. But as we learned with the children in cages, and family separation policies, the administration pursued a once somebody is in your care, you have an obligation to care for them. And especially if that person is of is vulnerable either, because they're sick or old or weak or young. And there were two stories this week that really depressed me. One is the news, that the Trump administration is cancelling almost everything that makes life tolerable for young migrants child migrants in US shelters, so English classes legal aid for unaccompanied child migrants soccer and other recreation, basically, you're saying, we only have money to do food and shelter, and that's it. And like that is not sufficient. That's not sufficient, if you have these children under your care, you have to do more than simply give them food and shelter. You have to find a way to make their life tolerable and keep them in progress. And then there's a second story that was in Yahoo. Yahoo news about the, the very strong evidence that border patrol is confiscating medicine that people are bringing over the border necessary medicine and not, and then not replacing it. So typical policy is if you come over the border with medicine, you explain this to a doctor, an American doctor, and the at American doctor, then issues, you prescription to ensure that your medicine, your necessary medicine continues in this is to prevent some plague of, of people bringing in illegal drugs or something. I mean, I think it's a ludicrous thing that preventing against, but at least understand the idea that okay, you, you don't want people to bring in air sets medicine or or or drugs under the cover of medicine. That's fine. But you have to then give the child their seizure medicine. Give. The adult their diabetes medicine, give the person, their blood pressure medicine and appears that what's happening is these meds are being confiscated. And then people are not just not getting any medicine in return. So they're living on a knife's edge, and that's that's monstrous and immoral and we should be ashamed that the government is doing it. So. There's that I also of course, want to talk about listener chatter because we've gotten lots of really great listener Chatters from you. Please keep them coming. Please tweet them to us at slate gap vest, or Email us at GATT fest. It's late dot com with your listener chatter or put him on the Facebook page. This one comes from at JD, Ronnie man starbuck and Ripley forever. I don't know what that starbuck and Ripley forever is. But whatever it is. And starbuck and Ripley forever says, for all the handwriting about social media. We forget the benefits of modern technologies and a link to a story about how the collapsing crime rates of the nineties might have been driven by cell phones. And this very interesting story, which was in the Atlantic about how the rival of cellphones seems to have diminished gang violence because there was less fighting over territory that wants cell phones. Cell phones arrived drug-dealing became less territorial than it had been. There was less need to fight about it. And. And therefore, there was just a diminishment in violence. And that's you know, that's good news. That's all right. That's nice. Anyway. Interesting story. So please send us your, your cocktail chatter, ideas by tweeting two sets like f s also I just want to welcome. Some new slate plus members Shelley Hutchins from Farmington North Carolina. Welcome. Kathleen Evans from Saint Louis Missouri. Howdy, Kathleen Tanya. No last name from south bend, Indiana. Hi, tania. Beth Miller from Philadelphia PA. I'm sure you'll run into Emily on the street. One of these days Beth Kate missour- from Los Angeles, California. How you doing keta? Thanks for joining slate. Plus, that's our show for today to get this is produced by Jocelyn Frank researcher is Bridget Dunlap, June. Thomas are managing who serve for slate audio and gave you a Roth is the editorial director slate audio. Thank on paying Danielle Hewitt and Ryan McEvoy for engineering today's show. You follow us on Twitter at sleet, gab gabfest for Emily badly. John. Persson. I'm David plots. So we'll see some of you. Some of you on Saturday in New York for our sleep day live show, and we'll talk to the rest of you all next week. Hello slate. Plus, how are you? There were Brits, by the thousands by the tens of thousands protesting. President Trump's visit to the United Kingdom this week president called those protests, fake news, even though they were very real this did, there was a huge baby, baby. Trump balloon Trump as a as a kind of crying hysterical baby a blimp, a blimp of Trump. There was duchess who did some side. I at the Trump's, there's a lot of mockery of Trump's poor tailoring of their morning coats. Is it good? John, is it is it a positive sign for the world? When the president of the United States goes abroad, and is met with with derision and protests. Well, I don't know if it's a positive sign for the world. Yeah. You know, my preference would be that it was on policy issues, and there's a bit of a tradition of protests. When American presidents, particularly go to Great Britain in eighty four they protested Reagan for the build up of missiles in Europe in gaffes fans. That was just a teaser to hear the rest of our slate plus conversation. Go to slate dot com flush gabfest plus to become a slate plus member today. The kids debate podcasts smash. Boom, best is back smash boom, best uses facts, and the power of persuasion, to help kids decide, which is better between two amazing things, like unicorns versus dragons chocolate versus cheese. Fine versus invisibility. The topics are fun. But every episode also teaches real skills about constructive debate, and making sound arguments. It's the perfect conversation starter for the whole family. Listen to smash boom best wherever you listen to podcasts.